E Pluribus Unum

OK, the dirty hippies were right about everything.

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , War in Iraq

[cross posted at Daily Kos]

Notwithstanding Krugman, it looks like a narrative is forming for the general election, and trust me, you've heard this song before: firmness versus nuance. It's a Republican frame and that means the traditional media will be eating it for breakfast, lunch and dinner. And that means there was only one winner (see below).

But first, hear me out:

To the extent that Edwards (and Obama) attacked Clinton on being "for it and against it at the same time," it helps the Republicans as much as it helps any Democrat. Why? Because, for Republicans, right and wrong don't matter -- only firmness and resolve matter. [Note: did I miss something or did Edwards pass when it came to declaring his position on Spitzer's proposal?]

Granted, Edwards is showing he, too, has cojones. The problem for Edwards comes later -- during the general election. Far more people believe Giuliani and/or McCain have the stones than believe Edwards does. So, down the line, Edwards may only have himself to blame. That's what happens when candidates accept their opponents' frame -- it leaves your opponent with plenty of ammunition during the general.

Also: another Republican frame is going to be fear. So when the debate turns to drivers' licenses for immigrants (as it will for at least the next few days) I'll give you one guess as to who that helps. Hint: It ain't the Democrats. [UPDATE: Jonathan Singer addresses the pros and cons of the issue.]

Deal with it: fear is a Republican frame. Fear of terrorists, fear of illegal immigrants, free-floating fear of "colored people." In fact, racial fear will be the most potent theme that the Republican base responds to.

And Giuliani is all about racial fear. Clinton? Buddies with Charlie Rangel and everyone in Harlem (just ask O'Reilly). Edwards --helping those in poverty? Please. You know who that helps, right? Obama? Too black. Not black enough. Can't make up his mind about what his race is. Except we know he's soft. Soft on Islamofascists. And you know what color their skin is.

Bottom line: the real winner last night was George W. Bush. And, by extension, his rightful heir: Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani who (like Cheney and Bush) has made his career out of fear. Long before 9/11, he made a name for himself by appearing at -- and later, as mayor, ordering police riots. And that's not to mention the infamous killing of Amadou Diallo. In fact, before this is over, the 9/11 thing may very well have fallen by the wayside, having been exposed as his weak spot, not his strength. His strength? Giuliani is the one virulent, determined, resolute, angry white male who will stick it to em, once and for all, wink wink nudge nudge.

Will the Dems be ready for that? As I see it, the only way to be truly ready is to be prepared to hang Bush around Rudy's neck and let him sink to the bottom of the fetid ocean he swims in. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. Who among the Dems is ready to do that?

Because you know Rudy's coming for you. Don't say you weren't warned.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (3) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Hillary Clinton , John Edwards , Rudy Giuliani

Cunning Realist:

Make no mistake: the administration is now in damn-the-torpedoes mode on the economy and financial markets. The housing market must not be in the headlines a year from now. The stock market must be at or near its highs when the administration leaves office so capital gains can be realized at good prices before a Democratic president raises taxes, and so apologists can point to the Dow and claim for the next few generations that Bush's fiscal policy "worked."

Do you think this particular administration will sit by idly if oil goes to $100, then $110, then $120 -- and a gallon of gas hits $4 in some areas during next summer's driving season, just a few months before the election? "Unrest in Nigeria" and "refinery problems in Texas" (and lately "Turkey-Kurd tensions") have limited shelf life as excuses. Statists hate pressure, but they fear consequences -- particularly when the culpability is both obvious and unavoidable.

This is why keeping Iran as an ever-ready trump card is so important. If those consequences get bad enough and no excuse will do, the use of force must be at least minimally plausible to the public and the rest of the world. In the meantime, the tension -- preferably continuous and drawn-out -- created by the mere possibility of a military strike is useful as an ongoing excuse for the spiraling price of oil...

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , Economics , George W. Bush , Iran , Politics , Republicans

Here it is -- we (you and I) are slated to spend $2.4 trillion (with a T) over the next 10 years on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The White House brushed off the estimate as too conditional. "It's just a ton of speculation," said White House press secretary Dana Perino. "We don't know how much the war is going to cost in the future."

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., said voters were suffering from "sticker shock...America's future is being held hostage by the cost of the war," he said.

It reminds me of something I saw while watching the trailer for that new Robert Redford movie, Lions for Lambs. In it, Reford's character said this:

"They bank on your apathy. They plan strategies around it...The problem is not with the people who started this. The problem is with us -- who do nothing."

Call Rahm Emanuel.

Call Nancy Pelosi.

Tell them -- again, as many times as it takes -- "no." Just "no."

"The problem is with us who do nothing."

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (5) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Afghanistan , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Iraq , War

by Mark Adams

From his lust for Kralizec to his desire to privatize Social Security, Rudy unites left and right, by his stupidity.  Seriously, the guy is absofreakinglutely bat-shit crazy.

Obama figures out he's just not that good at the 30 second sound-byte debate format -- cuts and runs from attending any more debates than those already scheduled.  I assume that means there will be a hard limit of no more than 47 more until we begin voting -- probably right after Thanksgiving.  Hopefully, there will be lots of arugula.

After watching some TPMtv, spotlighting Mitt Romney's profound ignorance of anything east of Boston Harbor, Raising Kaine concludes "Multiple-Choice Mitt" is a "Giant Foreign Policy Goofball."  News Hounds gets the hypocrisy of Romney's schpeel, but you really need to watch Josh Marshall put it all together to understand how profoundly delusional Romney is. 

Meanwhile, Eleanor Clift has a question for Mitt & Co. that might stop some of the GOP hopefuls in their tracks -- since of course, they'd have to think instead of regurgitating their 30 year-old talking points or trying to remember whether they we talking to an audience that preferred the flip to the flop.

Stop asking Romney and the other Republican front runners about abortion and start asking them where they stand on family planning.

Fred Thompson, who turns 65 today (thus eligible for all the entitlements he vows to abolish), is the only candidate who needed to have his fat, lazy ass trucked around the Iowa State Fair in a golf cart. 

Actually he looked kinda gaunt.  He'll need to scarf down a few more elephant ears to be the right's answer to Michael Moore. 

She really ought to take it easy on the old guy.  How many little blue pills can one man take?

I noted before that Mike Huckabee was kind spoken towards the Clintons, to the point where he would sound almost gushing if he weren't a Republican.  Rights Field's David Dayen thinks these remarks point to where Huckabee first got the idea that cars and buses were lame, that his super-coolness would be enshrined forever once his Harley cleared the shark tank.

This kid came from a dysfunctional family — alcoholic abusive father. And yet he didn't just aspire, he was elected president of the United States not once, but twice. That is an affirmation of the system. And it's a wonderful testament to give to every kid in America that no matter where you've come from, you've got an opportunity to do something extraordinary.

Wingnuttystan still says, "Gotcha," cuz that's all they got.  I mean, what are they gonna do?  Buy into McCain trying to be the anti-war candidate?  Puh-Leeze.

More Wingnut News...

Vice President Cheney is a dildo, what else to you call a dick substitute? (Do not Click if you are under age ... 40.)  Doctor BooMan advises us to use a condom anyway.

Speaking of nuts and other guilty pleasures of the alternate universe ... you know you just gotta click on a link that says Ron Paul teams up with Dennis Kucinich.

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Ann Coulter , Barack Obama , Dick Cheney , Fred Thompson , Hillary Clinton , John Edwards , John McCain , Mitt Romney , Politics , Rudy Giuliani , Social Security , War in Iraq

This is dick Cheney, circa 1994, justifying why the first President Bush did not occupy Iraq after the Gulf War.

The question for the president in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad and took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam was how many additional dead Americans was Saddam worth, and our judgment was not very many. And I think we got it right.

It reminds of the guy who says, "I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong."

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , Republicans , Video , War in Iraq

Cross Posted by Not Ara

dick Cheney vs. The Sopranos

The following is reprinted without permission, but with a LINK to the original, and a nudge to check out more of McSweeney's Internet Tendency where you can find more silly lists.

BY BENJAMIN FREED

- - - -

1. "Except for the occasional heart attack, I never felt better."

2. "You sound like a damn politician with all these excuses."

3. "What can you do—throw money at the problem?"

4. "He's never won anything, as best I can tell."

5. "Next time, there won't be a next time."

6. "You couldn't fuckin' retire?"

7. "Principle is OK up to a certain point, but principle doesn't do any good if you lose."

8. "First off, it wasn't an offer. It's my position."

9. "Everyone knows that you're not really a man unless you own a gun."

10. "I'll take that Discman and I'll ram it up your box."

11. "You want compromise?"

12. "Go fuck yourself."

Answers under the fold:

And after you're done scoring yourself, read this first class rant. Read it out loud, with passion! Great therapy.

Continue reading "Cuz Ara Owns "dick"" »

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , Entertainment , Funny

by shep

It’s almost here. For everyone other than the 25% of authoritarian (Bush) followers who are just fine with a Republican criminal enterprise running out of the Oval Office and the beltway elites who can’t stomach looking at the blood on their own hands, the argument is over. There is only one question remaining:

"Where are the real confrontations needed to vindicate the rule of law and restore constitutional order? No reasonable person can dispute that in the absence of genuine compulsion (and perhaps even then), the administration will continue to treat "the law" as something optional, and their power as absolute. Their wrongdoing is extreme, and only equally extreme corrective measures will suffice."
--Glenn Greenwald

Or, really, when will enough true patriots rise up and insist upon it?

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Law , Media , Politics , Republicans

I read this morning that John Conyers is close to initiating impeachment hearings from the House Judiciary Committee. Not sure this is accurate, but this video sums up just some of the reasons why he should get started right now.

P.S. Double-extra movie geek bonus points if you recognized the voice of Charlie Chaplin at the very end, taken from The Great Dictator.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Law , Video , War , War in Iraq

Bill Moyers' Journal explores the talk of impeachment with Constitutional scholar Bruce Fein, who wrote the first article of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, and The Nation's John Nichols, author of The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure For Royalism.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Law

...and the public is that close to being in favor of the impeachment of George W. Bush.

A new American Research Group national survey of 1,100 adults (conducted 7/3 through 7/5) finds:

• 54% favor "US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney;" 40% oppose.

• 45% favor "the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush;" 46% oppose.

In a related matter:

• 31% of approve of "President George W. Bush commuting the 30-month prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby while leaving intact Mr. Libby's conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case;" 64% disapprove.

• 11% favor a complete presidential pardon for Libby; 84% oppose.

Don't wait; there's too much at stake. Think of future generations who may be living under a president far worse than this one. They'll look back at us and wonder what we were waiting for while Bush and Cheney ransacked the Constitution.

Call today: Speaker of the House of Representatives - 202-225-0100.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Poll

Dan Froomkin:

The Framers, ever sensitive to the need for checks and balances, recognized the potential for abuse of the pardon power.

According to a Judiciary Committee report drafted in the aftermath of the Watergate crisis: "In the [Constitutional] convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to 'pardon crimes which were advised by himself' or, before indictment or conviction, 'to stop inquiry and prevent detection.' James Madison responded:

"[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty. . . .

"Madison went on to [say] contrary to his position in the Philadelphia convention, that the President could be suspended when suspected, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended until impeached and convicted, if he were also suspected."

Please call the office of the Speaker of the House today and firmly insist that impeachment be put back on the table; at the very least, all outstanding investigations of this presidential administration should be put under the umbrella of a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. If enough evidence is found of high crimes and misdemeanors, impeachment should be recommended to the committee and to the House of Representatives itself.

Don't wait; there's too much at stake. Think of future generations who may be living under a president far worse than this one. They'll look back at us and wonder what we were waiting for while Bush and Cheney ransacked the Constitution.

Call today: Speaker of the House of Representatives - 202-225-0100.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Law

by shep

Dear Norman Ornstein,

I’m writing you as the e-mailer Diane Rehm referred to this morning when she asked whether you thought that the motive and timing of President Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby's jail sentence might revolve around the threat he could pose to the Vice President (and, perhaps, the President himself) as his avenues for avoiding prison had just been exhausted. You dismissed the idea out-of-hand, without offering the slightest reason for why that couldn't be the case.

I may be no resident political scholar but my take is, the politics of satisfying the base aside, there is no other reasonable explanation for the timing of the commutation since it would have been weeks before Mr. Libby likely would have had to start serving his sentence. In the interim, however, Mr. Libby would have had significant motivation to offer testimony against the Vice President and, possibly, Mr. Bush himself.

Don’t take my word for it, here is what other commentators have had to say as reported by The Washington Post’s Dan Froomkin:

The New York Times: "Presidents have the power to grant clemency and pardons. But in this case, Mr. Bush did not sound like a leader making tough decisions about justice. He sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say when actually staring into a prison cell."

Los Angeles Times: "The larger problem in commuting Libby's sentence is the message it sends to his unfortunately unindicted co-conspirator, Cheney.

Sidney Blumenthal writes in Salon: "Bush's commutation of Libby's 30-month prison sentence for four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice was as politically necessary to hold his remaining hardcore base for the rest of his 18 months in office as it was politically damaging to his legacy and to the possibility of a Republican succession. It was also essential in order to sustain Libby's cover-up protecting Cheney and perhaps Bush himself."

Norman Pearlstine writes on Huffingtonpost.com: "Bush's rationale might have had some merit had Libby been convicted solely of perjury. If that were the case, one might argue that he was convicted of a 'process crime'. . .

"But that isn't what happened. In addition to perjury, Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice. That was the most important charge against him. Patrick Fitzgerald's summation to the jury and his sentencing recommendation made it clear that Libby's obstruction precluded him from ever determining whether his boss, Vice President Dick Cheney had broken the law and what role the White House had played in outing Plame. . . .

"[T]he commutation of Libby's sentence is a cover-up, pure and simple."

Marcy Wheeler blogs for the Guardian: "[T]he real effect of Bush's actions is to prevent Libby from revealing the truth about Bush's -- and vice president Cheney's -- own actions in the leak. By commuting Libby's sentence, Bush protected himself and his vice president from potential criminal exposure for their actions in the CIA Leak. As such, Libby's commutation is nothing short of another obstruction of justice.

Josh Marshall blogs: "The real offense here is not so much or not simply that the president has spared Scooter Libby the punishment that anyone else would have gotten for this crime (for what it's worth, I actually find the commutation more outrageous than a full pardon). The deeper offense is that the president has used his pardon power to shortcircuit the investigation of a crime to which he himself was quite likely a party, and to which, his vice president, who controls him, certainly was.

Joe Wilson on NPR: "Congress ought to conduct an investigation of whether or not the president himself is a participant in the obstruction of justice."

With all due respect, considering what Charles O. Jones wrote in your recent book about Mr. Bush’s governing style, the use of executive authority to cover-up and obstruct finding of wrongdoing is such a consistent and predictable facet of the modern CEO, it seems incredibly naïve to dismiss it without argument. Especially when considering the timing and the political danger of exposing everyone involved in the underlying crime – a White House conspiracy that exposed and destroyed an entire covert counter-proliferation operation in the CIA.

Sincerely,
[shep]

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Politics , Republicans , War in Iraq

The Founders created impeachment as a check on the unbridled power of a despotic executive. Impeachment was on the same spectrum as the other legislative checks: setting the legislative agenda, power of the purse, and investigative oversight. When those checks fail to rein in the president, impeachment is the only option. It is a powerful tool and should not be used lightly. But when the chief executive flouts the laws set by the Congress, when the president usurps the power of the judiciary in order to save members of his own cabal, then impeachment is required.

Impeachment is analogous to indictment and only needs a simple majority to proceed to a trial in the US Senate, where a super-majority would be required for conviction. The Founders meant for the Congress to be able to act without threat of a veto or review by the Supreme Court.

I believe that we are at a point now where a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee must consolidate all the many, many investigations of the Executive branch under the umbrella of impeachment hearings. And if the investigations find evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, then it should report that to the Judiciary Committee for resolution before the House as a whole.

Lane Hudson at HuffPo:

There are so many things that this Administration has done to betray the confidence of the American people. Rather than provide a long list of them here, I’ll give you some links to peruse:

• The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Americans
  
• The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing George W. Bush From Office
  
• Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush And Cheney

(the above are all books which make detailed legal arguments for impeachment)

• Citizen for Ethics and Responsibility’s new report: ‘Crossing the Line’
  
• Here is an article in the Washington Post on the historical background of Impeachment
  
• And finally, some fellow bloggers have plenty of comments about this: Mahablog, Down With Tyranny, Seeing The Forest, The Young Turks, and Crooks and Liars.

Tell Speaker Pelosi to put Impeachment BACK ON THE TABLE. Her phone number is 202-225-0100.

Future generations of Americans, perhaps living under a presidential regime far worse than this one, will look back at us and wonder why we did nothing while Bush and Cheney ransacked the Constitution.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Law

Here's something I pounded out last night and this morning...

Scooter Libby lied to the grand jury and got caught and got convicted. Scooter Libby was convicted of obstructing an investigation of a crime, a crime that may have involved his bosses Vice President Dick Cheney and President George Bush.

Then his boss, George Bush, stepped in and set him free.

And Fred Thompson? He raised the money that made it possible.

Fred Thompson. We don't need another one like him in the White House.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Corruption , Dick Cheney , Fred Thompson , George W. Bush , Republicans

By Mark Adams

The first time I heard this idea was driving around town, listening to the Randi Rhodes show. A caller suggested that we defund the Office of Vice President, throw the old man out of the Naval Observatory and shut down his bullying ways.

It gave me a smile, one of those bits of schadenfreude that you get thinking about something deliciously too good to ever happen in real life.

Then real life called, and Congressman Rahm Emanuel sent this little idea out to people like ... Atrios:

Washington, D.C. House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel
issued the following statement regarding his amendment to cut funding
for the Office of the Vice President from the bill that funds the
executive branch. The legislation -- the Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations bill -- will be considered on the floor of
the House of Representatives next week.

"The Vice President has a choice to make. If he believes his legal
case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive
branch. However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannot
ignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the Vice President
should be consistent. This amendment will ensure that the Vice
President's funding is consistent with his legal arguments. I have
worked closely with my colleagues on this amendment and will continue
to pursue this measure in the coming days."

There's More ...

Continue reading "Nancy's Purse" »

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney

In 2004, the Office of the Vice President blocked inspectors from the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) of the National Archives from conducting an on-site inspection of the VP's White House office. This, despite Executive Order 12958 requiring the ISOO to do it. This order was issued by the Chief Executive, the President of the United States.

According to Henry Waxman, Cheney "asserted that the Office of the Vice President is not an 'entity within the executive branch' and hence is not subject to presidential executive orders."

Bwahahahahaha! My gosh. Hahahahaha! Ahem.

See here's the thing: Cheney is just screwing with us now. He's talking smack. He's just blowing smoke out of his butt because he knows no one is going to stop him.

No. One.

Waxman:

In January 2007, the Information Security Oversight Office took the appropriate step under the executive order and asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resolve whether the President’s order applies to your office. According to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, you responded to this request by recommending that the executive order be amended to abolish the Information Security Oversight Office.

Bottom line: Cheney is just daring someone to stop him. And, so far, no one has.

So, based on past precedent, there is only one thing left for the US to do: Invasion!

(HT to Irfo)

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , Law , Republicans

(Cross posted to Daily Kos)

Most observers seemed to agree that sentencing guidelines would have allowed the judge to put Libby in jail for as little as 12-15 months, or less, citing damage done to his career, his long term service to the nation, yadda yadda yadda. So this comes as quite a shock to the long list of Libby's friends (Donald Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, and James Carville to name but a few), who wrote to Judge Walton asking for leniency, citing what a great guy Libby was.

Mary Matalin's plea was particularly putrid:

My lifelong view, which has only been validated in adulthood, is that kids are the most honest and true evaluators of people. Watching my children with Scooter, and all children with him, you'd think he hung the moon. He is gentle and caring. He is genuinely interested in others well being and still inspires me to this day. He is a compelling teacher and extraordinary role model for integrity and humility.

But wait, there's more:

I have seen what this trail has done to my own kids, just their reading about it. I cannot imagine the toll on Scooter and Harriet's young ones. Setting aside the pain of the Libby family, my girls just don't understand. They are old enough to intellectually comprehend the facts of the case but associating these "facts" with "Mr. Scooter" remains a complete disconnect to them.

What about the toll on Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson's young ones? I understand their kids are the around the same age as Matalin's and Libby's. Aren't they also "honest and true evaluators of people?"

What do you think they believe about the man who did this to their mother and father?

Mary Matalin (and James Carville!) might want to read their kids the words of President George H.W. Bush, someone that Matalin actually worked for once upon a time:

I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.

Judge Walton, today:

People who occupy these types of positions, where they have the welfare and security of nation in their hands, have a special obligation to not do anything that might create a problem

Libby will also be on probation for two years after coming out of prison. No word on whether he'll be immediately remanded to the country club federal prison or whether he can remain free on appeal.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Law , Republicans

(cross posted at Daily Kos)

Recently, while browsing another blog's comment thread I was brought up short when I came upon this statement:

It’s still unclear where the main source of our problem in Iraq lies.

But let's cut the snark and try to answer the man's question. Because until we can do that, not only will we have lost the Iraq war, we will have embarked on a path that will lead to one disastrous war after another, being bled dry by "leaders" who want one thing only: ultimate power.

Continue reading "Why Bush Lost The Iraq War" »

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , 4GW , Afghanistan , Democrats , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Iraq , Israel , Military , Republicans , War in Iraq

(cross posted at Daily Kos -- with poll)

OK, first things first: I was wrong.

Moving on...Chris Weigant wrote an open letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi detailing what the Dems should do now that Bush has vetoed the bill. In brief, here's what he says:

1. Lose the pork.
   Any Dem who bolts will be known to have only been for the pork in the first place -- not a great position to take right now.

2. Leave in the money for veterans' benefits.
   Let Bush complain about that all he wants -- this is our way of respecting the troops.

3. Lose the timetable.
   Sorry -- if he didn't OK it this time (when he could have easily issued a signing statement taking the money and ignoring the deadlines), he'll never go for it. Besides, the American people will be the final judge of when it's time to come out (see below). I don't think they'll blame the Dems for not trying.

4. Leave in the benchmarks -- but take out the consequences.
   You don't need any consequences written into the bill -- because the American people will provide all the consequences the Dems want or need.

   Check it out: Bush said, "When the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down." Well, it's clear now (and the American people know it too) that the Iraqis aren't going to stand up anytime soon; they're too busy killing each other (or letting the government go on a two-month vacation). So leave in the benchmarks and let the electorate provide the only consequence that matters -- a massive electoral defeat for the Republican party in '08. By this time next year, the Republicans will be facing an exile from power that will last for a generation or more. What better consequence could the Dems ask for?

5. Leave in the standards for troop-readiness.
   Again: this is how we respect the troops. And the Republicans? I'll leave it to sell the idea that, "you go with the Army you have, not the Army you'd like to have."

Nor is a weaker one.

The scenario Weigant talks about is the most realistic one I've seen yet that stands a chance of passage -- while putting the Dems on the right side of the issue morally and politically.

You have to move the ball forward, even if it is just by inches at a time.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (5) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Democrats , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Republicans , War in Iraq

MANCHESTER, N.H. —- Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001.

But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.

Update: John Edwards nails it:

"Rudy Giuliani's suggestion that there is some superior 'Republican' way to fight terrorism is both divisive and plain wrong. He knows better. That's not the kind of leadership he offered in the days immediately after 9/11, and it's not the kind of leadership any American should be offering now.

"As far as the facts are concerned, the current Republican administration led us into a war in Iraq that has made us less safe and undermined the fight against al Qaeda. If that's the 'Republican' way to fight terror, Giuliani should know that the American people are looking for a better plan. That's just one more reason why this election is so important; we need to elect a Democratic president who will end the disastrous diversion of the war in Iraq."

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Republicans , Rudy Giuliani , War in Iraq

by shep

I hate to beat a dead horse (but I just had to use that metaphor to describe the rotted corpse of what was once our adversarial press) and it may be obvious to many that calling the media “liberal” is absurd as long as it fails to reveal the truth or speak truth to power.

But this Sunday offered yet another journalistic horror show of worthless he-said, she-saids, framed by soft-spoken center-left Democrats such as Carl Levin and Bill Richardson on one side and mendacious idiots such as John Kyle, bombastic assh*les such as Lindsey Graham and, not to mention, the psychopathic, megalomaniac Dick Cheney on the other.

Although a target-rich environment, let’s focus on just a couple of the major Republican lies that go continuously unchallenged by our pampered press poodles. Here’s icky Dick explaining why the Democrats are going to give him and the idiot king a blank check for an open-ended occupation in the middle of a bloody civil war – against the expressed will of the American public:

"I don't think that the majority of the Democrats in Congress want to leave America's fighting forces in harm's way without the resources they need to defend themselves."

Now an adversarial press interviewer, rather than one committed, above all, to another chance to interview our monstrous vice president at a later date (yes I mean you Bob), might challenge this frame thusly:

"But aren’t the Democrats proposing to get the troops out of harm’s way altogether and isn’t the administration’s policy to keep them there indefinitely?"

See, it not that hard. Even for a guy who isn’t paid ridiculous sums of money to interview the powerful for living.

Graham repeats the same lie in his Mike Wallace interview opposite Carle Levin. Then he adds this bit of inane, lying spin when Wallace forcefully questions him about the lack of political progress in Iraq:

"My point is that it took us 13 years to write our Constitution. Then we had our own civil war. Political reconciliation is moving forward.

Allrightythen. Let’s see how a liberal, truth-loving interviewer might handle that stupid analogy (they might simply say, “that’s a stupid analogy,” but that might seem “uncivil”):

“What does the development of democracy in America in the 1700s have to do with the situation in Iraq?”

or

“The writing of our Constitution and the American civil war were separated by more than 100 years; are you suggesting that is analogous to what is happening in Iraq?"

or

“But Senator, we didn’t have to write our Constitution in the middle of a civil war, while occupied by foreign troops.”

and

“If this is what political reconciliation looks like, how will we ever tell when it’s time to leave?”

So now you know why people who watch liberal fake news, know more than people watching Face the Nation and way more than those who watch Fox.

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Democrats , Dick Cheney , Media , Politics , Republicans , War in Iraq

by Mark Adams

I cannot be said more bluntly. Thank you Mr. Uhler:

Your stupidity and incompetence, Mr. Bush, are becoming the stuff of legend. Like Willy Loman's, your sales pitches no longer persuade and are now viewed to be acts of desperation. And, as a self-proclaimed "born again" Christian, who supposedly receives guidance from God; you possess all the "moral clarity" of a guttersnipe.

Granted, you've yet to be removed from office, so attention must still be paid. But, mainly to record your crimes for posterity and more definitively demonstrate that you and your irredeemable Vice President were always lying, warmongering frauds.

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , George W. Bush

by shep

Shorter Liz Cheney: People think my daddy’s insane so he’s hoping you’ll take my word for it.

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , Politics , Republicans

by shep

Shankar Vedantam does a regular drive-by social science column for the WaPo, called “Department of Human Behavior.” In this week’s episode, as in many past columns, Mr. Vedantum shows us some interesting facet of human behavior and psychology that, in the end, manages to absolve the Bush Administration for its inhuman behavior and psychology.

Vedantum tells us that, “[t]he political scientist [Columbia University’s Richard Jervis], who counts himself as a critic of the Bush administration [bitchin' bona fides, eh?] said a focus on this historical analogy [Iraq’s successful concealment of its pre-Gulf war WMD program] – not political pressures from the White House (emphasis added) – played the central role in the intelligence failure.”

Gosh, I’m no “scholar” at Columbia but I’ve been awake for the last four years and I can google:

cheney pressured CIA intelligence iraq

Low and behold, the first two links are from Vedantum’s own WaPo:

Government sources said CIA analysts were not the only ones who felt pressure from their superiors to support public statements by Bush, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and others about the threat posed by Hussein.

Former and current intelligence officials said they felt a continual drumbeat, not only from Cheney and Libby, but also from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, Feith, and less so from CIA Director George J. Tenet, to find information or write reports in a way that would help the administration make the case that going into Iraq was urgent.

About a week later, the Post’s Walter Pincus (a profile in journalism whom his colleagues would do well to emulate), again documents Cheney administration treason:

Senior intelligence analysts say they feel caught between the demands from the White House, Pentagon and other government policymakers for intelligence that would make the administration's case and what they say is 'a lack of hard facts.'

And I believe that the Post and a few others did a little reporting on some sort of dust-up around something called “the sixteen words”:

Beginning in October, the CIA warned the administration not to use the Niger claim in public. CIA Director George J. Tenet personally persuaded deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley to omit it from President Bush's Oct. 7 speech in Cincinnati about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

But on the eve of Bush's Jan. 28 State of the Union address, Robert Joseph, an assistant to the president in charge of nonproliferation at the National Security Council (NSC), initially asked the CIA if the allegation that Iraq sought to purchase 500 pounds of uranium from Niger could be included in the presidential speech.

Well, just as long as incessant White House pressure in the form of repeated visits and calls from the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, setting up a parallel, fake intelligence office to compete with the CIA, and White House push-back against CIA warnings about discredited “mushroom cloud” claims, didn’t play the central role in taking the country into a disastrous war, based on a pack of lies.

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , War in Iraq

"Dick" Cheney is at it again:

Cheney called it a myth that "one can support the troops without giving them the tools and reinforcements they need to carry out their mission."

P.S. If this ties the hands of the generals on the ground, well, that's the way it is supposed to work: last time I looked, the military was governed by civilians like the Secretary of Defense AND the legislative branch of our government. The Commander in Chief is also a civilian -- who is elected by the people. So the people have the ultimate final say in this -- not the generals.

Get with the picture, "Dick."

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , War in Iraq

by shep

[Note: this is the second article by long-time commenter shep.]

Charles Krauthammer uses his extraordinary powers of clinical psychiatry to determine (from reading Michelle Cottle's article in the New Republic about Dick Cheney's mental health) that she is not only wrong but that she must surely suffer from, "a condition that addles the brain of otherwise normal journalists."

In his ever so scientific opinion, Mr. Krauthammer brags about this disease of the mind that "I have been credited with identifying, 'Bush Derangement Syndrome, Cheney Variant."

This condition, which "can strike without warning," is apparently characterized by an extreme inability to rationally analyze the world around you, resulting in blinding hatred of George W. Bush and/or Dick Cheney.

In other words:

Dick Cheney is not the most power-hungry, secretive, manipulative, war-mongering, partisan, anti-democratic Vice President in the history of the republic -- rather it is the 150 -200 million Americans who disapprove of the way Cheney has acted on the job that are addled of brain.

I can agree with one of Krauthammer's conclusions -- it may not be Cheney's heart problems that have led to his mental condition. But that wouldn't explain Krauthammer and the people who agree with him.

In fact, a researcher in Manitoba has identified a surprisingly common condition that sounds quite a bit like Dr. Krauthammer's derangement syndrome in which the afflicted, "drive through life under the influence of impaired thinking a lot more than most people do, exhibiting sloppy reasoning, highly compartmentalized beliefs, double standards, hypocrisy, self-blindness, a profound ethnocentrism, and - to top it all off - a ferocious dogmatism that makes it unlikely anyone could ever change their minds with evidence or logic."

Dr. Bob Altemeyer has developed the study of this frighteningly common condition called, "RWA," which, unfortunately for Dr. Chuck, seems unlikely to describe liberal critics of George Bush and Dick Cheney. Dr. Bob explains:

"I'm sure one can find left-wing authoritarians here and there, but they hardly exist in sufficient numbers now to threaten democracy in North America. However, I have found bucketfuls of right-wing authoritarians [RWAs] in nearly every sample I have drawn in Canada and the United States for the past three decades."

Go figure.

Go check out Dr. Bob's research (I recommend chapters 3 and 7, in particular, for those who won't read the whole book - though it really is a pleasure to read). But first take the test in Chapter 1 to find your RWA score.

After all, Michelle Cottle has the New Republic in which to practice medicine without a license and Dr. Krauthammer has his syndicated columns, talking-head shows and a small army of RWAs to peddle his "peer-reviewed" condition.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (2) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , Republicans , Science

You know that part of the Patriot Act which allows the Attorney General to appoint US attorneys without Senate confirmation? Turns out it was "designed by a mid-level department lawyer without the knowledge of his superiors or anyone at the White House."

Josh Marshall:

It's like some pulsing gyre of Anglomania -- George Orwell meets Monty Python, with Benny Hill along for the ride. The separation of powers issue is just down the memory hole. Now it was just some Justice Department lawyer freelancing.

Reminds me of that episode from The West Wing where the president's chief of staff, Leo, discovers (to his horror) that his executive secretary, Margaret, has taken on a bit too much responsibility...

MARGARET: "I can sign the president's name. I have his signature down pretty good." LEO: "You can sign the president's name?" MARGARET: "Yeah." LEO: "On a document removing him from power and handing it to someone else?" MARGARET: "A bad idea?" LEO: "I think the White house counsel would say that's a coup d'etat." MARGARET: "I'd probably end up doing some time for that." LEO: "I would think!"

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Law , Republicans

First, VPOTUS chief of staff Scooter Libby killed Valerie Plame's career (under orders from his boss) to stop Joe Wilson. After his indictment, he resigned. Then, taking a page out of the Jack Ruby manual on law enforcement, WH deputy chief of staff Karl Rove stabbed Scooter in the back to protect the president.

Now it turns out that AG Alberto Gonzalez' newly-resigned chief of staff Kyle Sampson (under orders from his boss?) killed the careers of 8 Federal prosecutors who wouldn't play dirty and supress Democratic votes before the last election. And, in a giddy coincidence, it turns out that WH counsel Harriet Miers' fingerprints were all over this fiasco as well. She, at least, had the good sense get out of the WH 6 weeks ago (shinnying down a bed-sheet ladder in the dead of night), long enough before this latest firestorm to prompt her boss to soon ask the question, "Harriet who? Never heard of her."

Thomas Nast couldn't have come up with a more vile bunch of thugs and bandits (left, click to view larger image).

[Note: This classic Nast political cartoon is entitled “A Group of Vultures Waiting for the Storm to ‘Blow Over’—‘Let Us Prey”]

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Law , Republicans

by Mark Adams

Halliburton will move HQ to Dubai | The Agonist:

"Waxman plans hearing on Halliburton move. ~ Think Progress"

All I ask it that they take the Dick they road in on...

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney

I really believe that the US attorney story has nothing to do with the tamping-down of investigations into Republican corruption.

I think Cheney is moving the chess pieces into place to cancel the election of 2008.

There. I said it. Think I'm paranoid? It would be a piece of cake: "The war on terror makes it unwise to change horses in mid-stream. The election of a new president is too risky at this time. If you don't like it, sue me. Go ahead -- try it and see how far you get."

Hell, Giuliani almost got away with it in NYC in the aftermath of 9/11, remember? And he's the presumptive nominee right now. If he gets the nomination, he'd go along with it in a heartbeat. That would leave the Democratic nominee to scream bloody murder all the way up to the Supreme Court -- and you know how far that went the LAST time. Besides, everyone knows Democrats are terrorist sympathisers anyway. You can freaking quote me on that.

Outrageous? No more so than anything that's already happened during the past 6+ years.

Remember -- you heard it hear first.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (3) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Corruption , Dick Cheney , Republicans

MSNBC:

Former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby was convicted Tuesday of obstruction, perjury and lying to the FBI in an investigation into the leak of a CIA operative’s identity.

Now I know Fitzgerald has said that the investigation has been "inactive" since before the trial began; he also said they (the prosecution team) could all go back to their day jobs.

But is it possible that Libby's sentencing might be contingent on his further cooperation with the authorities? If so, how long before Cheney resigns? If it happens, the official reason will be his recent health problems. But Libby's guilty verdicts are going to figure large in the calculation.

And, yes, he'll be pardoned along with Libby.

P.S. Saddle up the ponies! Can't wait to hear what Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame have to say about this. [Update: Here's Joe Wilson on Keith Olbermann's Countdown.]

They're suing everyone in sight and this makes everything that much more interesting.

UPDATE: Jane Hamsher captures a telling detail:

Afterwards Mrs. Libby came up and hugged [defense attorneys] Jeffress profusely, then Wells, saying "love you, love you" with much emotion. Then all the rest of the defense team. She didn't hug Scooter however, or hold his hand, or even make eye contact.

UPDATE 2: Nancy Pelosi:

Today's guilty verdicts are not solely about the acts of one individual. This trial provided a troubling picture of the inner workings of the Bush Administration. The testimony unmistakably revealed – at the highest levels of the Bush Administration – a callous disregard in handling sensitive national security information and a disposition to smear critics of the war in Iraq.

UPDATE 3: Attention Plame junkies (I'm talking to you, Mark): Huffington Post has the exclusive account of the jury deliberations, written by juror (and former Washington Post reporter) Dennis Collins. A must-read. No, really -- you have to read it.

UPDATE 4: Ari Emanuel says Cheney will resign on March 28.

UPDATE 5: Christy Hardin Smith has a positively fascinating and insightful analysis Libby's chances for a pardon. The title spills the beans: No Pardon. Period. In brief, she observes that Libby's future lies in the balance between Rove's influence over Bush vs. Cheney's. It is a must-read for Plame-junkies.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , Law , Republicans , War in Iraq

by Mark Adams

... then I should take some time to reconsider. -- A Few Good Men

Majority "Strongly Objects" To Bush Troop Buildup (via HuffPost)

Washington Post: Opposition to Bush's plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq remained strong. Two in three Americans registered their disapproval, with 56 percent saying they strongly object. The House recently passed a nonbinding resolution opposing the new deployments, but Republicans have blocked consideration of such a measure in the Senate.

The response from the Office of Vice President was refreshingly honest and blunt...

(more)

Continue reading "Oh. Well, If You Strenuously Object..." »

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , War in Iraq

The Brits are pulling out of Iraq -- and Cheney says that's a sign that things are going well in some parts of the country.

If that's so, then shouldn't the Brits be moving into the parts of Iraq that are, you know, not going so well -- like Baghdad?

(HT to Josh)

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , Republicans , War in Iraq

I'm no Senate parliamentarian so I don't have the ability to explain exactly what happened yesterday except to say there will be nothing done in the Senate about the Iraq war for the time being. What might have been (at most) a non-binding vote of no-confidence did not take place, nor did a debate of any length on the progress and conduct of the war.

Nothing. No. Thing.

Here's the simple recap: Republicans mostly voted against debate and Democrats mostly voted for it.

It's not over, but it ain't exactly an auspicious beginning.

P.S. What I wonder about is what spooked the Republicans into voting against debate. My hunch? Cheney, et. al., probably told them that it would embolden Iran and force the US to expand the war to include Iraq's neighbor(s).

UPDATE: Senator Obama has introduced a bill in the Senate and Rep. Thompson and Rep. Murphy have introduced the companion legislation in the House of Representatives. The bill is called "The Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007."

The binding legislation ends President Bush's escalation by capping the number of troops at January 10, 2007 levels, puts forward specific benchmarks for success in Iraq and establishes a timeline to redeploy our troops. Redeployment, according to the bill, would begin no later than May 1, 2007, with the goal of all combat brigades redeployed by March 31, 2008 - a date consistent with the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. Troops would be sent either home to their families in the U.S., to Afghanistan where more troops are needed to fight the war on terror or would remain in the region to train Iraqis, protect against more violence and perform counterterrorist activities. The Iraq War De-Escalation Act will refocus the efforts of American armed forces on Afghanistan and the hunt for Osama bin Laden and urges the president to send, within 60 days, a Special Envoy to Iraq to begin the important work of diplomacy with key nations in the region.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Democrats , Dick Cheney , Republicans , War in Iraq

Cenk Uygur pleads with the Republican party to come to their senses and stop Bush before he starts a war with Iran:

Gas prices at ten dollars a gallon, bombings all over the world, our troops trapped in the Middle East, trillions wasted. How on God's green earth do you think you're going to recover from that?
[...]
It's the Republicans who have to realize that this administration threatens their very existence...[I]n 2008 when the Republicans are run out of town en masse and the party is nearly finished historically, people will say, "Why didn't someone warn us?" Well, I'm warning you now. Please, either for your own political advantage or for the antiquated idea of actually helping the country, remove these guys from power before they do more damage. Otherwise, we will all live to regret it.

[The Dems] stand to gain nearly universal power if this administration actually starts a disastrous war with Iran. Nobody will vote for a Republican on the national level for another twenty years.

It's smart politics...except our troops will continue to die for a mistake. And, oh yeah, that part about the looming Iran war.

The only Democrat so far who has spoken out is Russ Feingold (and maybe Chris Dodd) who, rumor has it, is going to join the Republicans in filibustering the Warner-Levin non-binding resolution. His reasoning?

Some have argued that any legislative vehicle that could be spun as a rejection of the President’s policies would be worth supporting. I understand that strategy, and it may sound good to some. But when all the spinning is done, what we are left with is the actual text of the legislation, which is an endorsement of the open-ended commitment of the U.S. military in Iraq.

It’s time for Congress to end our military involvement in this war. We must redeploy our troops from Iraq so that we can focus on the global threats that face us.
[...]
I understand how important it is to send a clear message to the White House. But we shouldn’t make the compromises made in this resolution just to beat a filibuster. Instead of trying to pass something that everyone can get behind, we should be taking a strong stand. If others want to block it, go right ahead. We have the support of a majority of Americans behind us. We should recognize that and act on it.

Good for him. His voice must be heard.

UPDATE: Breaking news: U.S. not planning for war with Iran, Gates says

SusanG responds:

Leave aside for the minute any analysis of whether Gates is speaking the truth here, or whether recent actions fall into line with his statement. Just consider how frog-boiled this nation has become in the piping hot water provided by the Bush administration since 9/11. Reporting that we’re not going to war – in effect, declarations of non-events – now make up one of the main news stories of the day. We don’t even blink an eye. In fact, we breathe a sigh of relief that at least in official statements, the country has not gone to war between the time when we laid our heads upon our pillows last night and when we staggered to the coffeemaker this morning.

Pity a once-proud country that now rises each day to take comfort in the fact that it hasn’t attacked, or officially planned to attack, another country overnight. And that this is considered headline news.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , Democrats , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Iran , Iraq , Politics , Republicans , War

STEWART: This weekend, the president of the United States went on NPR to explain that he knows Cheney and Cheney is NOT delusional -- just optimistic.

(tape) BUSH: I think that the Vice President is a person reflecting a "half-glass-full" mentality.

STEWART: How twisted is your administration when [Cheney] is your Pollyanna? He's your optimist! He's your little ray of sunshine!

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Humor , Video

Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski:

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large.

A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Iran , War

Josh Marshall asks, "When the bogus 'Iran incident' happens that becomes the predicate for a military attack on Iran, what will it look like? Let's try to sketch it out in advance."

Read the whole thing.

P.S. Let's be clear -- whether or not the incident is "bogus" or "real" doesn't matter. THAT'S how badly Bush has damaged this country.

P.P.S. Sen. Webb (D-VA) asks the relevant question:"Is it the position of this administration that it possesses the authority to take unilateral action against Iran, in the absence of a direct threat, without congressional approval?”

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Iran , Republicans

(Click to see larger image)

Glenn Greenwald:

Yesterday, Party loyalist Hugh Hewitt unveiled what he and his comrades are calling "The Pledge" -- a creepy, Soviet-sounding declaration of loyalty, all based on Gen. Petraeus' decree, that vows to repudiate any Republican who opposes the "surge"...Bush followers across the Internet are now huddled in strategizing conference calls, and leading right-wing luminaries such as Glenn Reynolds have endorsed The Pledge.

Forward this to your friends. Go viral baby! End the War.

Yeah, you have to provide an email address to verify the signature, but if enough people do this, it'll be worth it.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Republicans , War in Iraq

Yow! Blitzer goes after Cheney, hammer and tongs:

Continue reading "What did Wolf Blitzer have for breakfast?" »

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (3) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney

Prosecutor says Libby destroyed "wiped out" Cheney memo

Judging by the prosecutor's opening arguments, Vice President Dick Cheney's role in the CIA leak case could be significant.

UPDATE: David Schuster has "clarified" his earlier report wherein he reported that the prosecutor (Fitzgerald) stated that Libby destroyed an incriminating note. Now Schuster is saying that the exact phrase was "wiped out." And furthermore, the note in question was in fact found by the authorities later. So, did Fitzgerald mean Libby "wiped out" Cheney's communication from his mind...or what?

In the meantime, Libby's defense attorneys are now saying that it was not Libby but Karl Rove himself who was at fault for smearing Valerie Plame. So, lots of fingerpointing.

UPDATE: The Libby defense is a bit more nuanced:

[Defense lawyer Ted Wells] told the jury that the White House went all out to defend [Karl] Rove against accusations he revealed Mrs. Wilson's identity, but did not protect Libby in the same way, leading Libby to suspect that he was being singled out for blame in the matter.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Corruption , Dick Cheney , Law

Libby's attorneys say it's critical they know whether potential jurors view the vice president as credible. Two people who expressed doubts about that were dismissed from the jury pool Tuesday.

"I don't have the highest opinion of him," a young financial analyst said. "If I had to rank people as to credibility, I wouldn't put him at the top of the list."

He was dismissed, as was a young woman who said she was "completely without objectivity" about Bush administration officials who might be called to testify.

"There is nothing they could say or do that would make me think anything positive about them," the woman said moments before she was excused from the jury pool by U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Corruption , Dick Cheney , Law

(This article was, of course, cross posted at Daily Kos)

Yesterday I listed the ten most read posts at E Pluribus Unum.

Today I'm listing my Top Ten "high-impact" diaries cross-posted at Daily Kos.

First, a word of explanation:

As you may know, there are thousands of diaries (posts) per day at Daily Kos. A tiny percentage become "recommended diaries" and are highlighted on a side-bar panel. An even tinier percentage are placed on the front page of the site. The vast majority of diaries come and go like waves lapping on the beach -- coming and going and being constantly replaced by new waves that also come and go. A "high-impact" diary represents the middle ground between a recommended diary and one of those waves on the beach. It is one of those diaries that gets the "optimum" combination of recommendations, comments and commenters. The system is somewhat arbitrary. Nonetheless, once a day, the high-impact diaries are recognized and share a brief moment of recognition.

These, then, are the diaries I posted at Daily Kos that recieved this recognition in 2006:

10. Connect dots:Cheney,Whittington=Bush lied under oath? (2/13)

8. (tie) Do the Democrats Have A Ground Game Like THIS One? (9/24)

8. (tie) (POLL) Dem Response To al-Maliki (7/25)

7. Fourth Generation Warfare: "You have to hunt like a network to defeat a network." (8/15)

6. NJ-04: Crum-believable! Colbert disses my ad for Carol Gay! (10/23)

5. Screw The Polls: Watch Prediction Markets (8/25)

4. Bush: Hiding a Serious Heart Condition? (8/23)

3. When Bush Taunts, Don't Defend: Attack Him Back HARD (6/29)

2. I'm an anti-war, yellow-dog Democrat -- and a Zionist, too (7/14)

And the highest impact diary I posted to Daily Kos in 2006 was...

1. Suskind: CIA knew "Osama backed Bush re-election" (6/21)

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , 4GW , Democrats , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Humor , Iraq , Israel , Television , Terrorism , Top Posts , Video , War in Iraq

Without further ado (or waiting til Dec. 31), here are E Pluribus Unum's most-read posts of 2006:

10. Dad Gave Me The Keys (Mark Adams)

Wow, a real blog. How cool is this.

9. Ohio Republicans, Offers That Can't Be Refused (Mark Adams)

In France, you can't even get away with taking a Viagra before a silly bike race. If they could prove that the Browns and the Cavaliers were "fixing" point spreads, or the Indians were throwing games, there'd be riots on Euclid Avenue. Push some inconvenient voters in the wrong direction, undermine our very democracy, and it's just business as usual.

8. Movie trailer mash-ups
Where else are you going to see the movie trailer for Brokeback To Future? OK, besides YouTube.com and every other blog and website on the Internets. All I can say is: God bless Google.

7. Marbury vs. Madison
I posted this in April, 2005 and it is still one of the most widely-read things I've ever written. It has bounced around in the top 50 sites (out of 175 thousand) at Google for the eponymous keyword phrase -- and it made a star out of our buddy Wince from Kansas:

Some would say God's Law is most high. Perhaps it is, as defined (for example) in the Bible. But we are not a nation that is governed by the church or the temple. Even if we were, all you have to do is look at the Talmud to understand that there is always more than one opinion about everything.

No, we are not a government ruled by the church. We are a government of the people, for the people and by the people. We follow a document that WE wrote.

Some would hope that God guided us in that ongoing endeavor. But if that is the case, it is also certainly true that God helps those who helps themselves.

It's hard to make your way through the difficult questions Wince, I know. But we all agreed, long ago, that this was a job for the people to do. We don't wait for God to judge these difficult cases for us.

6. What does leadership mean?

I think it was Chris Matthews who said voters respond most favorably to the candidate who can best articulate the following simple message: "Follow me!"

5. Intelligent Design: “The sky is blue because God wants it that way.”
The title (and the post) is borrowed from Nobel Prize winner Eric Cornell. What more is there to add?

4. Commerce Committee to Vote on Net Neutrality Wednesday
This post contained the names and numbers of the everyone on the Senate Commerce Committee and I urged you to call them and tell them to support the Snowe/Dorgan amendment. Net Neutrality survived -- for now. Stay tuned.

3. Top Ten Chuck Norris Facts
Jeez, I didn't even write it. And/But this post ranks #9 out of 480 thousand sites listed on Google. I'm baffled...but endlessly amused (along with, apparently, the rest of the Internets):

A blind man once stepped on Chuck Norris' shoe. Chuck replied, "Don't you know who I am? I'm Chuck Norris!" The mere mention of his name cured this man blindness. Sadly, the first, last, and only thing this man ever saw was a fatal roundhouse kick delivered by Chuck Norris.

2. Foley Scandal: What's up with Rep. Rodney Alexander?
Major hat tip to Miss Julie, who asked the title question thereby inspiring this post, early in the Foley scandal.

And the #1 most widely-read post of the year...

1. Bush-Cheney Escape War Crimes Prosecution
Go ahead, click the link -- you'll notice that this post was "dugg" 854 times so far (and viewed nearly 4 thousand times at Google Video -- with a strange spike in traffic on the day after Christmas). It's Jack Cafferty breathing fire:

Under the War Crimes Act, violations of the Geneva Conventions are felonies, in some cases punishable by death. When the Supreme Court ruled that the Geneva Convention applied to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, President Bush and his boys were suddenly in big trouble.

P.S. Sometime soon, I promise to post E Pluribus Unum's Top 10 most widely viewed videos -- including the one of Stephen Colbert showing (and dissing) my ad for congressional candidate, Carol Gay.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , About Me , Constitution , Corruption , Democrats , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Humor , Iraq , Law , Movies , Net Neutrality , Notable Quotes , Politics , Religion , Republicans , Top Posts , Video , War in Iraq

• The Washington Examiner editorial board thinks the 6 imams who got yanked off a US Airways flight in handcuffs (and no offer for a replacement flight home) got what they deserved. Unfortunately for the airline, the Examiner won't be the judge and jury in this case.

• Frank Rich believes that Bush isn't in a State of Denial but rather in The Final Days.

• I am not a rabid Michigan Wolverines football fan. I am, in fact, notorious for being a fair-weather fan of any of native state's home teams. That said, I think the Woverines got screwed in the BCS standings when Florida was chosen over Michigan to play Ohio State for the national title. Mitch Albom speaks for me:

  You can spin this thing any way you want. It was strictly about fresh versus familiar. In the end, Ohio State will play Florida on Jan. 8 in Glendale, Ariz., because people with votes want to see that game more than they want to see a rematch of Michigan-Ohio State. This was all about the line of thinking that says: "Give someone else a chance."

  But if the system were about giving everyone a chance, they wouldn't call it a poll, they'd call it a donkey ride

  And speaking of beasts of burden, I hope OSU beats Florida like a rented mule.

• John Bolton resigns! No, he didn't! Well, whatever you call it, he's gone. It all reminds me of that joke from "Bobcat" Goldthwaite: "I didn't lose my job. I know exactly where it is. I went back to work the other day and found it right where I left it -- except someone else is doing it now." [P.S. Remember when "pugnacious arrogance" was considered sexy? Yeah, well, neither do I.]

• And remind me again...what exactly did we do for amusement in the days before we could watch as a big octopus squeezes itself through a little hole?

• If you were in charge of creating the 2007 Official RNC Calendar, what would you put on every single month's page? That's right -- pictures of George W. Bush! Now there's the perfect holiday stocking stuffer from a party that just got socked in the jaw by an angry electorate. [Note: Actually Bush is only on 11 of the pages -- "Dick" Cheney is Mr. August. In a white cowboy hat. I kid you not.]

• I knew it, I knew it, I knew it: deep down, Ken Starr knows that Jesus hates Democrats.

• Never mind all the junior high school crap about who gets to chair a committee: Robert Reich says (and I agree) that the first real test of Democratic seriousness is over the fight between Big Pharma vs. Medicare.

  Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
  Categories: Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Odds & Sods , Religion , Sports , Terrorism , Video

This election is your last chance to speak up and be heard -- until 2008.

Do you want to let things ride until then? Or do you think it is time to make a course correction?

Fact is, there are no easy solutions left. But the Democrats will (at least) ask the hard questions and try to find the best solution. On the other hand, the Republicans will just continue to be a rubber stamp for the the Bush administration's failed policies.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , Democrats , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Republicans , Video , War in Iraq

It's about Iraq, stupid.

So Kerry should cede the spotlight to the one man who can guarantee victory for the Democrats on November 7.

That man is George W. Bush.

For some unknown reason (and to the great frustration of his own party's candidates), the president continues to talk about victory in Iraq at this late date in the campaign. And/But instead of going back to his office and at least look like he's trying to win that war, he insists on stumping before crowds of Bush loyalists in places like Georgia. And/But in doing so, he keeps alive the one issue that hurts his party and helps the Democrats. He is either unable or unwilling to accept what this election is all about. Democrats, to their credit, HAVE figured it out:

It's about Iraq, stupid.

Democrats know that the closing argument for this campaign is simple: if you like the way things are going in Iraq, vote for the Republicans. But if you feel that we need a change of direction, vote for the Democrats.

Now, like most things in life, it isn't that simple. But, for once, the Democrats understand that when it comes to politics, most voters will only take the time to glance at a snapshot, not the whole movie.

Now maybe Bush is reverting to his former role as a high school cheerleader. Maybe he sees his role as Morale-Builder-In-Chief. But even if Osama is captured -- or delivers another jihad-video -- on November 3, it won't change what this election is about:

It's about Iraq, stupid.

Bush is missing what everyone else sees: that every day we stay in Iraq, two outcomes will become more and more likely. Both outcomes are mutually reinforcing. Both outcomes are bad for Iraq. Both outcomes are bad for the US. Both outcomes lead to defeat in the Iraq war for the US.

It's about Iraq, stupid and Iraq is all about this, now:

1. Life is going from bad to worse for the Iraqis.
   
2. An anti-US Iraqi government is gaining in strength and momentum.

And/But still, Bush doesn't get it. Or maybe he does and he thinks that being a cheerleader will turn it around. I don't know anymore what he thinks and, really, I don't care. It doesn't matter what he says -- it only matters what he does.

And by staying the course in Iraq, by insisting that victory is around the corner, saying that the insurgency is in its last throes, and/or by bashing Kerry, by saying that a vote for the Democrats is a vote for the terrorists, he hurts the Republicans and he helps the Democrats.

He doesn't get it. He doesn't get that it really IS about Iraq, stupid.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , Democrats , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Republicans , War in Iraq

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."

What you can't deny is that, for many (if not most) successful college graduates, the armed services are not going to be the first choice. How could it be, if they look around and see what's happening in Iraq?

That didn't stop that preening poodle, Tony Snow, from yapping:

"Senator Kerry not only owes an apology to those who are serving, but also to the families of those who’ve given their lives in this...This is an absolute insult."

Kerry's response:

"This is the classic GOP playbook...I’m sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did. I’m not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium."

Good for John Kerry.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Republicans , War in Iraq

"We're in this grand ideological struggle," said the President two days later. "I am in disbelief that people don't take these people seriously." He was sitting in the Oval Office with a handful of columnists including yours truly. At the risk of making that C-SPAN caller's head explode, it was a great honor. I wasn't the only foreigner in the room: there was a bust of Winston Churchill, along with those of Lincoln and Eisenhower. A war president, a war prime minister, a war general.

First of all, I stand corrected: Bush is more clueless than Steyn. "I am in disbelief that people don't take these people seriously."

Really? Could it be because you have NO CREDIBILITY left? Not a shred? And you don't know that? And here's the real tragedy: "these people" really do want to do us harm. But because Bush completely screwed up the fight against them, it will now be harder to beat them back.

And then there's Steyn.

"I wasn't the only foreigner in the room: there was a bust of Winston Churchill..."

My god he has a high opinion of himself.

P.S. Churchill would have cut him (and Bush) to pieces.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Republicans

...Patrick Fitzgerald demolished Scooter Libby's "memory expert:"

There were several moments when Loftus was completely caught off guard by Fitzgerald, creating some very awkward silences in the courtroom.

One of those moments came when Loftus insisted that she had never met Fitzgerald. He then reminded her that he had cross-examined her before, when she was an expert defense witness and he was a prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office in New York.

Libby's defense team declined to comment.

P.S. Trial starts in January. Hang on -- it looks like it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , Law , Republicans

But if you think we need a change of direction, then vote for the Democrats on Nov. 7.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Politics , Republicans , Video , War in Iraq

Could it be that the worsening situation in Iraq becomes the main story -- the October Surprise -- between now and November 7?:

BAGHDAD, Oct. 25 (UPI) -- The significant surge of violence in Iraq sweeping U.S. personnel, Iraqi armed forces and civilians has made October the deadliest for Americans in Iraq.

The U.S. army announced Wednesday the death of four U.S. Marines, bringing to at least 87 the number of American personnel killed in Iraq this month.

Problem is, the president has abandoned "stay the course," pretending like he was never for it all along.

And Democrats? Our message should be the same: if you are happy with the way things are going in Iraq, then vote for the Republicans -- they'll stay the course and you'll get more of the same. But if you've had enough, if you think we need to change course, then vote for the Democrats on Nov. 7.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , Democrats , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Republicans , War in Iraq

Future historians will marvel at the power and ruthlessness of the Bush administration. Despite being weak in support and approval from voters, Bush and the rubber-stamp Republican congress (helped along by willing Democrats) were able to gut key provisions in the Constitution, destroying protections to our individual liberties that the Founders risked their lives to enshrine into our way of life:

Continue reading "Today, we're one small step closer to Soviet-style tyranny" »

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Law

Olbermann addresses the Military Commissions Act in a special comment...

Full transcript follows:

Continue reading "Olbermann: "Beginning of the end of America"" »

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , History , Law , Video

Habeas corpus is your principle defense against imprisonment without charge and trial without defense, now thrown away for no good reason, with the president's signature yesterday on the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Furthermore, the president is empowered to decide who is an "unlawful enemy combatant." That category can now include citizens and non-citizens alike -- and if you are deemed an enemy of the state, you can be arrested and jailed, no questions asked (or answered).

The president can also pick and choose which parts of the Geneva Convention he will obey, i.e., torture is now "legal," so God help you if you are one of the detainees.

As Senator Feingold said, "We will look back on this day as a stain on American history."

Keith Olbermann discusses the details with George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley.

Continue reading "Habeas Corpus, 1789-2006" »

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Republicans , Terrorism , Video , War

So much for Mark Foley.

Continue reading "We'll Die In A Torrent Of Hell's Fire Unless You Vote Republican" »

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (2) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , North Korea , Republicans

(Cross posted at Daily Kos)

As you all know, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 exempts Bush-Cheney from prosecution for war crimes against any detainee being held at Gitmo or elsewhere.

But did you know that that exemption is retroactive -- and reaches back to November 26, 1997?

What is the significance of that date?

The answer will send a chill up your spine and turn your blood ice-cold, I promise.

Continue reading "Bush exempt from torture prosecution--as of 11/26/97. Why that date?" »

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , History , Law , War

(Video included below)
(Cross posted to Daily Kos)

If I were a Democratic challenger for Congress, I'd use any (or all) of the following issues to beat my Republican opponent like a rented mule.

In no particular order:

• The latest Abramoff revelations,
  
• Foley sex scandal and the resulting House leadership crisis
  
• Troubles in Iraq (including the Saudis building a 550 mile security fence along their Iraqi border)
  
• Troubles in Afghanistan
  
• The Iraqi poll showing we are not greeted as liberators by the by the Iraqis.
  
• Woodward's book

1. Bush is atrocious
2. The Republican incumbent IS Bush
3. So the Republican incumbent is atrocious.
4. Had enough? Then vote for change, vote Democratic.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , Afghanistan , Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Politics , Republicans , War , War in Iraq

Continue reading "Bush-Cheney Escape War Crimes Prosecution" »

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Politics , Republicans , Terrorism , War , War in Iraq

The video is short -- just 5 minutes. Watch the whole thing, then share it with your friends. Just click the SHARE button (lower right corner of video screen) and insert the appropriate email addresses.

Don't wait -- the election is less than 40 days off. If Bush and the Republicans hold onto their majority, God only knows what's in store for this country over the next two years.

This is what people will be discussing for the next 7 days, at least...

Watch it now and then share it with your friends. Time is tight -- the election is almost on top of us. Get the word out: Vote Democratic and stop Bush before it is too late.

NBC News:

Bob Woodward's new book, State of Denial, accuses US officials of deliberately trying to mislead the public about the worsening state of the war in Iraq.

Bob Woodward: There is public and then there is private. But what did they do with the private? They stamped it secret. No one is supposed to know. Why is that secret?

The book, to be released Monday, also claims senior US officials in Iraq urgently called for more troops as early as September, 2003 to contain the growing insurgency. But they were ignored -- the assessments considered too pessimistic.

Woodward: The insurgents know what they're doing, the level of violence and how effective they are.

Who doesn't know? The American public.

Continue reading "Bombshell Book: “Has Bush Lost Control Of Iraq?”" »

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , Books , Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , History , Iraq , Law , Military , Politics , Republicans , Video , War in Iraq

I think that's what Bush loyalists are thinking as evidenced by their "non-partisan" analysis and discussion of the PDB of August, 2001 and Bush's reaction (translation: "none") to it.

It would be more entertaining (and insightful perhaps) to read their take on Bush's "The Pet Goat" moment, less than 5 weeks later, when the venue was different but the reaction was the same: nothing.

Anyone?

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Republicans , Terrorism , War , War in Iraq

Keith Olbermann:

The nation's freedoms are under assault by an administration whose policies can do us as much damage as Al-Qaeda; the nation's "marketplace of ideas" is being poisoned, by a propaganda company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would've quit.

Nonetheless....

...the headline is this: Bill Clinton did what almost none of us have done, in five years. He has spoken the truth about 9/11, and the current presidential administration.

Continue reading "Olbermann blasts Bush and Fox News" »

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Politics , Republicans , Television , Terrorism , Video , War , War in Iraq

I surely must not be the first (nor the last) person to point this out, but the McCain/Bush "compromise" on torture is illegal because it goes against Article VI of the US Constitution.

First, some background.

Continue reading "Torture "compromise" violates the US Constitution" »

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Corruption , Democrats , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Law , Republicans

McCain won't authorize torture, but he won't prevent it, either:

Mr. Bush wanted Congress to formally approve these practices and to declare them consistent with the Geneva Conventions. It will not. But it will not stop him either, if the legislation is passed in the form agreed on yesterday. Mr. Bush will go down in history for his embrace of torture and bear responsibility for the enormous damage that has caused.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Politics , Republicans

(Cross posted at Daily Kos)

I've been around long enough to remember what it was like living under the Nixon administration: subject to the draft, vulnerable to unconstitutional power-grabs like Cointelpro, and witnessing the whole snakepit of lawbreaking that lay beneath what we now call "Watergate." And when Nixon went down I viewed it as a triumph -- the system had righted itself.

Many years later, when Miss Julie worried about the state of the nation should Bush be re-elected in 2004, I told her that the country survived Nixon back then and we'd survive Bush this time.

But I may have spoken too soon.

Continue reading "It can't happen here? Think again." »

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , Constitution , Democrats , Dick Cheney

Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC):

The Geneva Convention is just not some concept; it has saved lives. We adhere to it, and we expect others to do it.

Continue reading "Why We Must Not Change The Geneva Convention" »

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , Constitution , Democrats , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Law , Republicans , Terrorism , War

Question: Do you agree with the president that the US is fighting the decisive ideological struggle of the twenty-first century?

Brzezinski: I think it's an absolutely absurd formulation...We're dealing with a bunch of fanatics. We're dealing with some foolish fundamentalist haters of the west. We're dealing with some outraged ethnic and nationalist feelings. But to elevate this into a global ideological collision, and directly somehow reminiscent of the twentieth-century struggle with Nazis and communism, is an absurdity which either reflects profound ignorance, or a totally manipulative desire to use public anxiety for political purposes.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (6) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Republicans , Terrorism

(Click to watch video)

History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government, by its critics.

It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation's wounds, but to take political advantage.

Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.

The President -- and those around him -- did that.

They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused; as appeasers; as those who, in the Vice President's words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."

They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection" meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken... a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated Al-Qaeda as much as we did.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had "something to do" with 9/11, is "lying by implication."

The impolite phrase, is "impeachable offense."

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , History , Republicans , Television , Terrorism , Video , War in Iraq

Glenn Greenwald has the scoop.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (4) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Law , NSA , Republicans

It is widely understood that every time Bush mentions Bin Laden's name, Bush's numbers go up. So the Gang of 500 is all a-twitter that Dear Leader's ballsy move, the transfer of several terror suspects from the CIA-secret-prisons-that-don't-really-exist over to Gitmo, will cause a bump in Bush's approval ratings. Some are even predicting that this development will be the beginning of a turn-around that will allow the Republicans to hang on to their majority in both houses of Congress. That remains to be seen. After all, Bush's numbers showed only a temporary rise after the Brits busted up the London terror plot, whereas the Dick Morris' of the pundit-world had predicted a 10-point rise.

Whatever.

Track it for yourself: Bush is at 41% in Rasmussen's daily poll -- where he's been since March. And other polling is indicating that the Dems will take the House and maybe the Senate. So let's look at the numbers in a week and see where we're headed. My hunch is that you don't reverse a year's worth of dissatisfaction with a week's worth of posturing, but I've been wrong before.

P.S. Today -- as if by coincidence! -- Al Jazeera is airing video of Bin Laden meeting with some of the 9/11 hijackers. Could it be that Al Jazeera (who Bush wanted to bomb during the early stages of the Iraq war) is in cahoots with Bush? Or is it more likely that Al Jazeera is in cahoots with al-Qaeda?

Or, even more likely, is it true that what's good for the goose is good for the gander? You know, as far as Bin Laden and al-Qaeda are concerned, Bush has been very, very, very good for business. So maybe the release of the video helps both sides; Bush gets to scare people some more while Bin Laden gets to burnish his reputation.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Republicans , Terrorism

Bruce Schneier keeps a scorecard from the war on terror, compiling DoJ stats on actual prosecutions.

From these stats, one might conclude that "there is no there there," i.e., the threat of terrorism may be inaccurate and/or exaggerated.

(HT to Xeni)

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Terrorism

ABC's docudrama, 'The Path to 9/11,' is a mix of fact, fantasy and deliberate distortion adding up to blatant pro-Bush propaganda. Sheldon Rampton shares details.

UPDATE: Richard Clarke Blasts Key Scene In ABC's 9/11 Docudrama:

ThinkProgress has obtained a rebuttal of key scenes from Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, and now counterterrorism adviser to ABC:

1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.

2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.

3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.

In short, this scene -- which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden -- never happened. It was completely made up by [the show's writer].

The actual history is quite different. According to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199), then-CIA Director George Tenet had the authority from President Clinton to kill Bin Laden. Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, "Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda."

Tell ABC to tell the truth about 9/11.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , Corruption , Dick Cheney , Entertainment , George W. Bush , Movies , Republicans , Television , Terrorism , War

Honestly -- did he think we wouldn't remember?

Frank Rich:

Mr. Rumsfeld didn't go to Baghdad in 1983 to tour the museum. Then a private citizen, he had been dispatched as an emissary by the Reagan administration, which sought to align itself with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam was already a notorious thug. Well before Mr. Rumsfeld's trip, Amnesty International had reported the dictator's use of torture -- "beating, burning, sexual abuse and the infliction of electric shocks" -- on hundreds of political prisoners. Dozens more had been summarily executed or had "disappeared." American intelligence agencies knew that Saddam had used chemical weapons to gas both Iraqi Kurds and Iranians.

According to declassified State Department memos detailing Mr. Rumsfeld's Baghdad meetings, the American visitor never raised the subject of these crimes with his host. (Mr. Rumsfeld has since claimed otherwise, but that is not supported by the documents, which can be viewed online at George Washington University's National Security Archive.) Within a year of his visit, the American mission was accomplished: Iraq and the United States resumed diplomatic relations for the first time since Iraq had severed them in 1967 in protest of American backing of Israel in the Six-Day War.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (2) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Republicans , War in Iraq

Keith Olbermann responds with eloquence and passion to Rumsfeld's recent ghastly speech:

From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire "Fog of Fear" which continues to envelope this nation - Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies, have - inadvertently or intentionally - profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.

And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer's New Clothes.

In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight?

With what country has he confused... the United States of America?

Contact MSNBC management and express your support and thanks for Mr. Olbermann.
The email addresses: viewerservices@msnbc.com and letters@msnbc.com .

For Countdown in particular, the contact address is countdown@msnbc.com.

Anyone wishing to express their thanks directly to Keith can write to him at KOlbermann@msnbc.com.

Another useful thing to do: Go to Keith's blog, scroll down to the bottom, and rate up the importance of the story.

Last, and most important of all, watch Countdown tonight (8pm EDT, 7pm CDT). Network executives do, after all, pay attention to ratings.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , History , Politics , Republicans , Television , Terrorism , Video , War , War in Iraq

Garrison Keillor says we're sticking the next generation with debt and an unjust war. Solution: Cut healthcare for people with "Bush/Cheney" bumper stickers.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Health + Wellness , Health Care , Republicans

(Cross posted at Daily Kos)

These are troubling times for those who believe in government of the people, for the people and by the people. Around the world, those who believe that God's word is law are in control of the crucial mechanisms that control war and peace.

But it's discouraging to hear those Democrats, liberals and progressives  who reflexively frame this struggle as "David versus Goliath," who back the "underdog." By doing so, we progressives further muddy the intellectual waters and sow the seeds of our own defeat in election after election.

Continue reading "Battle Lines Are Drawn: Nobody's Right If Everyone Is Wrong" »

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Corruption , Democrats , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Republicans , Terrorism , War

Click to see full cartoon...

Continue reading "Ever get the feeling that the terrorists are laughing at us?" »

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (3) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Politics , Republicans , Terrorism

Over at Daily Kos, diarist 'thereisnospoon' makes a crucial point: Democrats musn't argue points of law when opposing the warrantless wiretaps. They must say that, by avoiding the required warrants, Bush raises the suspicion that he is NOT surveilling terrorists -- he is surveilling his political enemies.

The technicalities of Constitutional Law are the realm of reason. Voters actually VOTE based on emotion. They don't really care if Bush is breaking the law; they care if he's doing something morally wrong.

The truth is that if Bush wiretaps a terrorist and doesn't bother with a warrant first, the public admires him [for being] a no-bullshit, Dirty Harry kind of guy.

But if he's hiding political Mafia tactics under the cloak of National Security, then they see him as the worst kind of villain you can imagine.

The key is getting them to entertain the unthinkable notion of what we all know is undoubtedly true: that Bush isn't Dirty Harry; he's the corrupt cop Dirty Harry has to bring to justice.

And another thing...

We know that a government based on "trusting" Dear Leader is not what the Founders had in mind:

The founding fathers didn't set up a government based on trust. They could've designed a government based on trust and our ability to govern fairly but they knew that power corrupts. So they invented checks and balances. That was genius. The founding fathers did not want me to trust you and they did not want you to trust me. Every White House forgets about checks and balances, you guys are no different.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Law , NSA , Politics , Republicans

Contrary to what I've urged previously, it now looks more likely that the Israel-Lebanon war really might be the undercard to the main bout: US-Iran. Meteor Blades tells it.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (5) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Iran , Israel , Lebanon , Politics , Religion , Republicans , War

This is big news:

A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. The White House said it "couldn't disagree" more with the ruling.

Glenn Greenwald has the particulars:

Continue reading "Federal court finds warrantless eavesdropping unconstitutional" »

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (4) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Law , NSA , Republicans

Darksyde:

One second Reagan is up there standing toe-to-toe with the Rooskis, negotiating cool as a cucumber with 20,000 nukes pointed at him, and the next thing I know, the likes of Limbaugh or the crew at Powerwhine and Freeperland, are all shrieking like a class full of tweaked-out, neurotic fifth-graders having a panic attack every time OBL pops up in a grainy video with a rusty AK in the background.

What the hell happened to the GOP I once knew?

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (3) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Politics , Republicans

From the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

The White House and Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) have reportedly come to a sham compromise that would sweep the illegal NSA warrantless wiretapping activity and any further government surveillance under the rug, shuffling legal challenges out of the traditional court system and into the shadowy FISA courts. Tell Congress to reject this proposal and let cases like EFF's have a fair hearing in court.

1. Visit this site
   
2. Add your name and address to the form.
   
3. Click to submit the letter -- EFF will route it to your Congressmen, based on your address.

Please do it now -- it'll only take a moment of your time. Thanks.

Here's the text of the letter I sent:

Continue reading "Stop Specter's NSA Surveillance Bill" »

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Law , NSA , Politics , Republicans

Colbert does Lieberman...

...and Stewart does Novak, Cheney, and Rove.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (2) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , Corruption , Dick Cheney , Humor , Politics , Republicans , Television , Video

(Click below the fold to read the Keith Olbermann interview of John Dean.)

Amazon:

...Dean takes a sincere, well-considered look at how conservative politics in the U.S. is veering dangerously close to authoritarianism, offering a penetrating and highly disturbing portrait of many of the major players in Republican politics and power.

Continue reading "John Dean's “Conservatives Without Conscience“" »

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , History , Politics , Republicans

The deficit will for budget year ending Sept. 30 will register $296 billion, under a new White House estimate released Tuesday.

That works out to $1,000 for every man, woman and child in the USA. This year.

So...all you adults -- pay up right now and include the money your kids owe. Or, if you prefer, you can just have your kids pay the whole thing.

It's the American way!

P.S. You also have the option of selling that debt to unspecified Chinese bankers.

P.P.S. What's that you say? You want another tax cut? Bwahahahahaha! You're kidding right? Well, all right then. Why don't we just cut taxes to zero and borrow the entire cost of running the government from those Chinese bankers?

UPDATE: Here's the top five largest budget deficits in American history:

1. 2004 (George W. Bush) $413 billion
   
2. 2003 (George W. Bush) $378 billion
   
3. 2005 (George W. Bush) $318 billion
   
4. 2006 (George W. Bush) $296 billion (projected)
   
5. 1992 (George H. W. Bush) $290 billion

Go ahead -- make my day. Tell me that $1.4 trillion in accumlated deficits is better than it looks. You know what I'm talking about: Republican knuckleheads who point out that "the economy is humming along." Hell, you'd hum along too if you had a credit card with no spending limit and no due date for paying it back. Woo hoo! We're humming along, baby!

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , Economics , George W. Bush , Republicans

Joe Conason:

Right-wingers desperate to intimidate the press have accused the New York Times of treason for publishing details of a terror investigation -- ignoring the fact that everything significant about that operation has been known for years.

UPDATE: John Amato and Glenn Greenwald want to know why all the Bush loyalists are celebrating the unauthorized leak to the Daily News of the FBI's arrests of alleged terrorists who were talking in Internet chat rooms about blowing up the Holland Tunnel.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , Constitution , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Law , Politics , Republicans , Terrorism , War

Shorter Glenn Greenwald: Opponents of monarchical power should celebrate this decision.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (4) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Law , Terrorism , War

Yesterday, I posted a piece about Ron Suskind's new book, The One-Percent Doctrine.

The book has generated some buzz, mostly about the story it tells of an aborted al-Qaeda plan to attack the NYC subway system with poison gas. The traditional media has trumpeted this story as proof that Dear Leader is still protecting us. On the other hand, Sen. Shumer used it to demand that full funding be restored to NYC after the DHS sent their money to, um, Wyoming instead.

In his interview with Wolf Blitzer, Susskind details how, in the months following 9/11, "Dick" Cheney formulated something called the One-Percent Doctrine:

A key feature of the Cheney Doctrine was to quietly liberate action from such accepted standards of proof and it was effective. Suspicion, both inside America and abroad, became the threshold for action.

This makes sense up to a point.

When evaluating risk, one looks at three factors:

• the likelihood of a catastrophic event occuring
• the enormity of the resulting consequences, and
• the degree of vulnerability that you have to that potential catastrophe.

But what bothers me is that in the one and only instance in which the Cheney Doctrine was put to the test, it failed miserably. Cheney's one-percent probability was significantly closer to zero percent.

And the resulting response resulted in a catastrophe of its own making.

And, ironically, Hurricane Katrina (itself a catastrophe with a likelihood quite a bit greater than 1%) made a further mockery of Cheney's doctrine.

P.S. There was a corollary to Cheney's doctrine: 99 innocent men are worth arresting so that one guilty man is captured. The backlash from that, and the resulting loss of trust in the US, will last a generation or more.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , Hurricane Katrina , Republicans , Terrorism

They said it after 9/11, they said it after Katrina, now they're saying it about Iraq:

Q: Do you think that you underestimated the insurgency's strength?

Cheney: I think so, umm I guess, the uh, if I look back on it now. I don't think anybody anticipated the level of violence that we've encountered....

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , Republicans , War in Iraq

DATELINE, TALK LEFT:

Huge breaking news from Jason Leopold just now at Truthout -- Karl Rove has been indicted.

Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an Amb to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?

As TruthOut reported Friday evening, Rove told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials, that he will be indicted in the CIA leak case and will immediately resign his White House job when the special counsel publicly announces the charges against him, according to sources.

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Law , NSA , Politics , Republicans

LaShawn Barber was attempting to draft hypothetical Articles of Impeachment against Bush. Predictably, people in her audience popped a collective blood vessel.

Rosemary wants to help and has asked her audience to pitch in.

As for me, I think talk of impeachment is (to say the least) premature. Not only that: this kind of talk only serves to rile up the Republican base (as evidenced by LBC's audience going off the deep end). Rove and Mehlman are behind it. From their perspective, what's not to like? It is a proven money-maker for the party. Money follows fear.

But I digress.

It's premature to talk about articles of impeachment because we haven't even seen a proper investigation of the Executive branch yet. And apparently we never will as long as the rubber stamp Republican Congress is in the majority.

So cool your jets, people -- Republican and Democrat alike.

P.S. "Investigation" is not the same thing as "impeachment," nor is it the same as "conviction." All of you who are outraged that we might even consider "investigating" the president during wartime are waaaaaaaaaay out of line. You should be aware that It is well within Congress' constitutional authority to engage in oversight and that includes investigating the executive branch.

C'mon -- wouldn't you like to know what happened to all those missing billions of dollars in Iraq?

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , Constitution , Democrats , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Law

Our favorite Bush Republican apologist reminds us of something we all knew to be true: that when the facts are against your side and the law is against your side and the polls are against your side, when your side's gang of true believers is dwindling fast, then you have to rile up your side by launching a stale attack on "chicken liberals." You know -- femininazis, wetback-sympathizers, queers, queer-lovers, married queers, married queers adopting children, Jane-Fonda-loving-cheese-eating-white-wine-swilling-NASCAR-hating-liberals-from-Massachusetts -- whatever it takes. My god! The next election is Armageddon and you need all the Christian soldiers you can muster.

And if the irony is too much -- that you're apparently wasting that astronomical IQ that God gave you -- blast 'em all for being jealous of your good looks.

In short, become the sort of Republican caricature that Stephen Colbert loves to mock:

Anybody who knows me knows that I am no fan of dictionaries or reference books. They're elitist for constantly telling us what is or isn't true, what did or didn't happen...

I don't trust books. They're all fact and no heart. And that's exactly what's pulling our country apart today. Because face it, folks, we are a divided nation... We are divided by those who think with their head, and those who know with their heart.

...[For example, take] Iraq... If you think about it, maybe there are a few missing pieces to the rationale for war. But doesn't taking Saddam out feel like the right thing...right here in the gut? Because that's where the truth comes from, ladies and gentlemen...the gut.

Did you know that you have more nerve endings in your stomach than in your head? Look it up. Now, somebody's gonna say `I did look that up and its wrong'. Well, Mister, that's because you looked it up in a book. Next time, try looking it up in your gut. I did. And my gut tells me that's how our nervous system works.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (2) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Republicans

(HT to John)

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , History , Iraq , War , War in Iraq

FDR, from a fireside chat in April, 1942:

The blunt fact is that every single person in the United States is going to be affected by this program. Some of you will be affected more directly by one or two of these restrictive measures, but all of you will be affected indirectly by all of them.

Are you a business man, or do you own stock in a business corporation? Well, your profits are going to be cut down to a reasonably low level by taxation. Your income will be subject to higher taxes. Indeed in these days, when every available dollar should go to the war effort, I do not think that any American citizen should have a net income in excess of $25,000 per year after payment of taxes....

As I told the Congress yesterday, "sacrifice" is not exactly the proper word with which to describe this program of self-denial. When, at the end of this great struggle we shall have saved our free way of life, we shall have made no "sacrifice."

So, if Bush realllllllllllly wants to be another FDR (like he says), then let him say that no American citizen should have a net income in excess of $300 thousand until the war on terror is over.

After all, at the end of this great struggle, if we have saved our free way of life, we shall have made no "sacrifice."

Who'll be the first one to cry the bitter tears of class warfare now? Any takers?

P.S. They won't have Tom DeLay to provide them any cover: ''Nothing is more important in the face of a war,'' declared Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, ''than cutting taxes.''

(HT to Moonboots)

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Iran , Iraq , Republicans , War , War in Iraq

Lt Gen Gregory Newbold was once the Director of Operations at the Pentagon. He retired in December 2002, four months before the invasion of Iraq.

Writing in Time, he says that he has a lot of regrets about not speaking out more forcefully against the war in Iraq while it was in its planning stages. He also doesn't care for Condi Rice:

...Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent statement that "we" made the "right strategic decisions" but made thousands of "tactical errors" is an outrage. It reflects an effort to obscure gross errors in strategy by shifting the blame for failure to those who have been resolute in fighting. The truth is, our forces are successful in spite of the strategic guidance they receive, not because of it...

Add that to reports that the Pentagon brass is reeeeeallllllllly upset about plans to use nukes in Iran, well, it sounds like the wheels are coming off the wagon.

Who's in charge here?

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Military , War , War in Iraq

In the aftermath of the Challenger explosion in 1986, I recall someone (perhaps Richard Feynman?) saying that when something that big goes so wrong, there isn't a single cause for it. This is true simply because NASA engineers things with so many failsafe systems that if Plan A fails, there is a Plan B and a Plan C.

Which brings me to Iraq.

I saw this today in The Note:

A former Administration official [Ara: Colin Powell?] summed up the three years of the Iraq war as three successive kinds of failure: "There was an intellectual failure at the start. There was an implementation failure after that. And now there's a failure of political will."

And without political will, nothing is possible.

Which brings me to William F. Buckley:

William F. Buckley Jr., the longtime conservative writer and leader, said George W. Bush's presidency will be judged entirely by the outcome of a war in Iraq that is now a failure.

"Mr. Bush is in the hands of a fortune that will be unremitting on the point of Iraq," Buckley said in an interview that will air on Bloomberg Television this weekend. "If he'd invented the Bill of Rights it wouldn't get him out of his jam."

Buckley said he doesn't have a formula for getting out of Iraq, though he said ``it's important that we acknowledge in the inner councils of state that it (the war) has failed, so that we should look for opportunities to cope with that failure.''

The 80-year-old Buckley is among a handful of prominent conservatives who are criticizing the war. Asked who is to blame for what he deems a failure, Buckley said, "the president," adding that "he doesn't hesitate to accept responsibility."

Buckley called Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a longtime friend, "a failed executor" of the war. And Vice President Dick Cheney "was flatly misled," Buckley said. "He believed the business about the weapons of mass destruction."

So here's the shorter Bill Buckley: Bush blew it but took the blame. Rumsfeld was just following orders. And Cheney was a dope.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Republicans , War in Iraq

According to Sunstein, warrantless wiretapping is nothing compared to being dead.

P.S. I'll bet there are a lot of unsuspecting Americans who would be shocked to hear that Cass Sunstein thinks that they are this far from being liquidated.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (3) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , Constitution , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Iraq , Law , NSA , Republicans , War , War in Iraq

Because he's still at it:

When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers...

Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it "a piece of legislation that’s vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a "signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.

In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would "impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."

Bush wrote: "The executive branch shall construe the provisions... that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch... in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information... "

Fact is, censure is too mild a rebuke for Bush. He needs to be impeached. That's the proper time for the investigation that everyone wants. And if he's convicted, we'll all be better off without him.

P.S. And that goes for Cheney and the horse he rode in on.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Democrats , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Republicans

[Click image to watch video.]

I don't agree with much of anything that the Family Research Council advocates. I don't much care for its Executive Director Tony Perkins. I think they stand for a dangerous confluence of religion and government.

But on one thing we seem to agree: the death sentence handed down on that Christian convert in Afghanistan is not only wrong, but our endorsement of that regime is shameful.

Perkins:

[The Afghani] constitiution and the wording of giving deference to Sharia law is very similar to what is in the Iraqi constitution....The resolve of the American people will not long stand if they know that they are giving their sons and daughters to die for just changing the names of regimes.

We've spent our blood and our treasure creating two regimes that are inimical to everything we stand for and everything in our American tradition.

And that a guy like Tony Perkins has finally woken up and taken notice of what Bush has done, well, you know we've reached a tipping point in this whole shameful episode in our history.

Update: Pachacutec Tivo'd the interview and relates that MSNBC left out Perkins' slip-of-the-tongue: he actually said "our sons and dollars" which is pretty damn funny.]

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , Faith & Religion , George W. Bush , Republicans , War in Iraq

After watching Bush trudge through the latest round of speeches, a "town hall meeting" and a White House press conference, it's easy to see that (as Howard Kurtz puts it) people have tuned the guy out.

Can you blame them?

On one hand, Bush is like a used car salesman who, when you return with a lemon, doesn't try to fix the car. Instead, he tells you it really isn't a lemon, even though the wheels are falling off. You might try to convince him to hire a new mechanic, but he'll just go on and on -- "trust me!" -- about how well the car really runs.

[Note: I've forgotten who originally made this observation, but a HT to them.]

Speaking of going on and on, Digby nails Bush dead-to-rights:

Listening to George W. Bush's speeches for the last five years, particularly after 9/11, is like having someone sing "It's a small world after all" over and over and over again. It was bad the first time. Now it makes you want to stab your ears with a letter opener.

The press, forced to listen more often than anyone else, seems to have reached its limit as well.

By the way, John Aravosis points out an interesting wrinkle in that last press conference: Bush is subtly blaming the military for losing the war in Iraq.

First, here's Bush:

"I'm going to make up my mind based upon the advice of the United States military that's in Iraq," said Bush, who spoke with U.S. commanders in Iraq earlier from the White House via videoconference.

"I'll be making up my mind about the troop levels based upon recommendations of those who are on the ground."

I have a feeling General Pace and the military brass aren't at all pleased with how Iraq is going, with the fact that Donald Rumsfeld is their Secretary of Defense, or with the fact that George Bush is their commander in chief. I suspect the military brass isn't at all responsible for our troops numbers in Iraq, for our strategy, or even for the fact that we're staying.

I think George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld ignored the advice of the military throughout this entire war, and the military is having to implement a pretty crappy plan for victory that was shoved down its throat.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (4) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Terrorism , War in Iraq

From The Late Show with David Letterman:

10. Trying to fix up Condi Rice with his daughter

9. Turns out when you shoot somebody, if you're not vice president, you gotta do time

8. Bush leaves at two every day and then it's margaritas and Fritos

7. Set the solitare high score on his office computer

6. Wants to see if he can help Bush get his approval rating under ten

5. Too hard to give up Vice Presidential Discount at D.C. area Sam Goody stores

4. Wants to stay on the job until every country in the world hates us

3. Extra-zappy White House defibrillators

2. Undisclosed location has foosball and whores

And the #1 Reason "Dick" Cheney Won't Resign...

1. Why quit when things are going so well?

(HT to Bill in Portland Maine)

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Amusement , Dick Cheney , Funny , George W. Bush , Humor

U.S. Senator Russ Feingold has announced that he will introduce a resolution in the U.S. Senate on Monday to censure the President of the United States.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Democrats , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Law , NSA , Republicans

Bwahahahahaha!

You know, this is exactly the kind of deal Bush would have gotten away with about 3 years ago...when his approval ratings were in the high sixties.

And he might yet pull it off. After all, Halliburton is an American company. And it's not like it hasn't already "demonstrated" that it can "handle" government "contracts" related to "security" and the "war on terror."

Riiiiiiiiight. Say it again: Halliburton....then cue the crickets.

P.S. If this deal goes through, and you don't like it -- Cheney'll just shoot you in the face.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Politics , Republicans , Terrorism

Monday: Will powerful House Republican Bill Thomas retire? [Update: Thomas did announce his retirement.] If so, will there ultimately be so many House Republican retirements that the party has trouble holding the majority?

Tuesday: Will Tom DeLay win the Republican nomination in his district outright, or will he face a run-off?

Wednesday: Bush comes to my part of the country, making another trip to inspect Katrina damage and recovery. Previously, the House Katrina Commission blasted this White House, saying we were still unprepared (four years after 9/11) for another disaster. Will Bush's visit give him a bump in the polls, or will Republicans be viewed as the do-nothing party?

Thursday: Potential Republican presidential candidates gather in Memphis to address the party faithful (and the traditional media). A straw poll will follow. Let the 2008 games begin! Who comes out on top -- McCain or Allen? And who, if anyone, distances himself from the Bush-Cheney record?

(HT to The Note)

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , Democrats , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Hurricane Katrina , Louisiana , Media , Politics , Republicans

I've been away for about a week, reading only USA Today while I was gone. When I got back and touched base with the usual blogs, I was struck by the intensity of feeling that accompanied certain stories, most notably the release of the Presidential briefing video that preceded Hurricane Katrina's landfall. You've probably seen it so I won't go back over it. What struck me was that it seemed to renew an old story: that Bush was not engaged, or out of touch at the beginning of the crisis.

This is news?

Not only that: lots of discussion about how low Bush's approval ratings have gone south again (mid-30's in some polls). There was even some discussion about Cheney's approval ratings (18% in the CBS poll, prompting Jon Stewart to observe that Cheney can't even rally all the dentists who recommend gum with sugar).

Ho-hum.

Here's the thing: Bush isn't running for anything, so approval ratings really mean nothing at this point.

And yet...

...it matters. It matters because he is the leader of the Republican party which is going to put its Congressional majority on the line in November.

The issue is a simple one, and the less the nuance the better, at least for the Democrats. It goes like this:

"If you are happy with the direction of the country, if you are pleased with where we are today, vote for the Republican candidate for Congress in your local district. If, however, you think we're on the wrong track, if you are wondering where we're going and what this handbasket is for, then vote for the Democratic candidate for Congress in your local district."

Actually, it's even simpler than that:

"In brief -- if you keep voting like you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always gotten. So if you want to make a change, you have to change the way you vote."

I'll probably have more about this another time, but for now, that's how I see it.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (3) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , Democrats , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Politics , Poll , Republicans

Bill Maher interviews Sen. Russ Feingold.

Watch the video -- it's a great shot of adrenaline and straight talk from a Democrat who calls it the way he sees it.

Click the image (left) to watch the video -- it's around 8 minutes long and well worth your time, especially if you think there are no Democrats speaking up against the "Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight," Feingold's apt label for the Bush-Cheney gang.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , Democrats , Dick Cheney , Energy , Environment , George W. Bush , Humor , Iraq , Jokes , Media , Military , NSA , Notable Quotes , Politics , Republicans , Terrorism , Video , War in Iraq

Glenn Greenwald:

[In 1978], the Soviet Union was an infinitely stronger, more formidable, more sophisticated enemy with far vaster resources than Al Qaeda could dream of possessing.

And Communists, we were always told, employed their own deadly version of "sleeper cells" by systematically implanting foreign agents and even recruiting American citizens on U.S. soil to work on their behalf, including infiltrating the highest levels of the U.S. Government with their agents and sympathizers.

And yet, in the midst of all of these internal and external threats, the Congress enacted and the President signed into a law a statute [FISA] permitting eavesdropping for foreign intelligence purposes only with judicial oversight.

And more generally, during the four decades during which America fought the "Cold War" -- a war which was always depicted by both parties as posing an existential threat to our country -- no President ever seized, nor did Americans ever bequeath, the power to act contrary to Congressional laws and outside of the parameters of judicial "interference."

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (2) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , History , Republicans , Terrorism , War

I've only had limited exposure to Mark Warner (mostly on paper). And I wasn't exactly bowled over.

But the following piece presents Warner in a different light. And the post is so good that I'm going to apologize in advance for copying-and-pasting the whole thing...

From Reality Bites Back:

How does a pro-choice, pro-government, pro-tax Democrat get elected with an 80% approval rating in the state of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Grover Norquist? How do you counter Republican fear mongering, deception, fear mongering, cronyism and fear mongering? How do you win amidst an ocean of red, riled to a blood-thirsty, mouth-foaming torrent by Rove, Luntz and shotgun Cheney? Last night, I got to meet former Virginia Governor Mark Warner and hear from the man myself. And here's what he had to say...

"Virginia is a southern state." He made that clear as day. `It's not part of New England. It's the state where the Christian Right makes its home. It's 2 to 1 Republican, but there is a way to win.'

His tactic to approaching the Republican base starts with: "I'm a Democrat but, contrary to what you may think..." He paused, indicating that's the way he begins every appeal to a conservative area. He continues `I may not check every box of what you want, but I want to work with you to solve the problems that are important to you.' He mentions jobs, healthcare, education, economic development, and key to this, creating opportunities for `regular Americans' to stay in the community they grew up in by helping those communities compete in new industries of the future. He says he also boldly declares "I will never take away your guns. We need to enforce our existing laws. I'm not going to add a whole bunch of new ones." This, to counter the wall of deception by the NRA's constant "lib'ruls wanna take your guns away" droning.

Continue reading "Mark Warner: “If the Republicans offer fear, we need to offer hope.”" »

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , Democrats , Dick Cheney , Economics , Energy , Environment , Faith & Religion , George W. Bush , Health + Wellness , Health Care , Iraq , Jobs , Military , Politics , Republicans , Technology , Terrorism , War , War in Iraq

As you know by now, yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to REJECT a Resolution of Inquiry requesting that the Attorney General turn over copies of legal opinions and other documents concerning the NSA's warrantless surveillance program. The vote was 21-16 against the resolution.

In other words, Democrats on the Committee wanted Congress to exercise its Constitutional authority to conduct oversight of the Executive Branch but the Republican majority rejected that.

By this action, it seems quite clear once again that this Congress has given up any appearance of being a co-equal branch of government with the Executive.

That said, the other co-equal branch, the SCOTUS, will eventually (and inevitably) be asked to step in and rule on Bush's illegal actions. And regardless of how they rule, lasting damage to the Legislative branch will already have occurred.

How so, you ask?

Simply put, future Presidents will know that one of the three branches has been, for all intents and purposes, neutered. And since the President has the authority to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court, s/he can simply stack the court until they, too, become a rubber stamp for whatever s/he wants to do.

The solution? Divided government -- a Congress of the opposing party that will exercise its Constitutional authority:

1. If necessary, cut off funding for the President's programs.
   
2. If necessary, sidetrack all business related to the President's agenda.
   
3. If necessary, hold investigative oversight hearings (where the witnesses are put under oath).
   
4. If necessary, impeach and convict the President.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2006 Elections , Constitution , Democrats , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Iraq , Law , Military , Politics , Republicans , Terrorism , War , War in Iraq

Here's what we will take away from the story:

"Dick" Cheney shot a guy in the face, tried to cover it up and didn't apologize for it.

The End.

P.S. It's the same damn template he's used throughout his tenure as Veep: screw up, pretend like it didn't happen, and don't back down. Come to think about it, it's the same damn template Bush has used over and over and over.

No wonder their approval ratings are in the toilet.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney